Talk:Sakurai's Object/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar is consistently correct throughout.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Meets criteria relating to the MoS.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article contains a list of properly formatted citations.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Meets criteria, and additionally meets the mentioned scientific citation guidelines.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No clear or detectable OR.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Both manual and tool lookups do not return any significant chance of a copyright violation.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Each apparent major aspect of Sakurai's Object have been addressed while...	Pass
(b) (focused)	...staying focused on the key aspects.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The article represents all viewpoints without bias.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The article can be considered stable.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The sole image is from Commons.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The sole image has a suitable caption.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Clearly meets the GA criteria without the need for improvements.

Discussion

@Samtar: Are you sure that 3a is satisfied? While I haven't looked through in much detail I'd be surprised if this relatively short article was a good summary of the ~~nearly 300 papers which mention the subject~~ nearly 80 papers specifically about the subject. Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Samwalton9: I think the additional note 3 should clarify your doubt (it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.). Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Samwalton9: Thanks for your comment and concern - when evaluating GA's I try to balance between the criteria and the community expectations for a GA. I firmly believe that this article meets the criteria, and agree with UY Scuti that the "main aspects" of the topic are covered adequately. I would advise editors that this article's scope is not yet sufficient for it to be classed a FA, which requires significantly more coverage -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]